Seeking Class Action Lawyer for suit against Fictionwise

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by ATimson

So will I... for now. My concern is less my Buywise membership than the $300 in Micropay I have sitting around (after having bought all the John Grisham titles, thinking that there'd be titles I'd want to spend that rebate money on).

Did someone (fictionwise) say you can't spend your micro pay on ebooks at FW?

BOb

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Did someone (fictionwise) say you can't spend your micro pay on ebooks at FW?

You appear to have missed or ignored the "that I want to spend money on" clause in my post.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by ATimson

You appear to have missed or ignored the "that I want to spend money on" clause in my post.

Guess I did. Of course... that could have been the case even if the agency model didn't cause them to pull books. I really expect those books will be back though.

BOb

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Guess I did. Of course... that could have been the case even if the agency model didn't cause them to pull books.

It could've. It's not likely, but it's possible. But that's also why it's a "concern" and not "something I feel the need to push Fictionwise on".

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I really expect those books will be back though.

Which is another reason why I'm content to wait for now.

[Grumpyreader]

Originally Posted by advocate2

Grumpy,

Indemnification is a separate issue which deals more with guarantees. It is not relevant to the issues here. If you read my posts you will see that I never mentioned indemnification. I am not sure where you came up with the term.

Please consider this hypothetical.

Ah, a key difference between US and UK law there I think. We call "covenants" indemnities. Covenants only seem to crop up for land law purposes. The rules about implied, express and (most importantly) the need to prove a financial loss still remain though. Although no doubt a qualified attorney will now jump in and prove me wrong...cue qualified attorney.

Whilst the Seller A and Seller B point is incredibly irritating for you and us all, I'm not sure it would impact upon any legal claim. The ultimate point is that FW made a statement and you relied upon it when buying your membership. If that statement turns out to be false then no doubt you, and lots of other people, will be considering your options.

However it looks like all FW said was "we'll give you an extra 15% off all ebooks at FW". And they're doing that. The fact that you thought they'd always offer the books that you wanted, at a cheaper price than B&N etc is only pertinent if FW made statements to lead you to think that.

As before I'm not a US corporate/commercial lawyer (it shows I know) and you shouldn't rely on anything I say.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by advocate2

Tort is a separate area of law from Contract....

What contract do you have with Fictionwise that has been violated?

They're honoring your membership until your time period is up:

http://www.fictionwise.com/help/buywise_message.htm

Ergo, I do not see that they violated your contract.

Substitute whatever term you like to indicate "frivolous lawsuits," as that is clearly what this would be.

No. Case. Period.

[DawnFalcon]

So, you're a lawyer by profession then Kali Yuga. Nice to know.

[JSWolf]

One thing Fictionwise never said is that they were going to be removing all the eBooks from the publishers going with the agency pricing. FW is not saying what's going on and when these publishers will (if ever) be back there. Having them at B&N is useless as B&N is eReader only now.

Basically, Fictionwise & B&N can kiss my ass and get shat on doing so.

[DawnFalcon]

Yep. Information, information, information. Even if it's "Don't panic".

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by advocate2

Kali,

Tort is a separate area of law from Contract. This has nothing to do with tort which deals with negligence and intentional torts such as trespass.

This case has to do with promises made to induce the public to deliver money to FW to obtain a benefit. It has to do with duties between two parties to a contract. May I ask all those who find FW's behavior acceptable, did you actually buy a membership or are you just throwing in your two cents? Perhaps your feelings about damages would be different if you had made a payment to FW.

Contracts have covenants. Those covenants can be implied or express. Perhaps you should read a book on Contract law. You don't indicate your location so I don't know if you live in a common law jurisdiction or not. Keep in mind that the law of continental Europe is based upon the Napolionic Code while the UK and the US use the common law. I am not really interested in giving a course in US consumer protection and contract law, but your analysis is flawed by your misunderstanding of the law.

Um, when did class action suits become part of contract law?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yep. Information, information, information. Even if it's "Don't panic".

the time most people panic is when people tell them not to panic.

They are probably better off waiting until they are sure what is happening. They may not even know.

BOb

[advocate2]

Buddy,

Contract law is a substantive area of law. Class Actions are a procedural matter. Whenever you have many persons who are similarly situated, it is not cost effective for the plaintiffs and burdensome to the Defendants and Courts system to have a proliferation of many lawsuits. The Class Action Procedure allows consolidation of many plaintiffs into one case. The problem with the case at hand is that there may not be enough members and the damages each suffered is not likely to be more than a couple of hundred dollars each. Honestly, I'm just not sure that enough damages have been sustained by the class to attract the typical class action contingency law firm.

Kali,

a small amount of damages does not make a case frivolous. A court can grant damages of $1 for a wrong sustained and proven. Frivolouse refers to cases under which no meaningful legal theory can be sustained. It is also, in the US, illegal to practice law without a license, which you appear to be doing. You should also know that if you ever are called to be a juror in the US that you do not tell the jurors the law, the Judge does. The jury is presented with admissable evidence and decides the facts from the evidence. Thank heavens we will not have to rely on you and Bob to be apologists for a large company that has misrepresented facts to its customers in order to take their money.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by advocate2

Buddy,

Contract law is a substantive area of law. Class Actions are a procedural matter. Whenever you have many persons who are similarly situated, it is not cost effective for the plaintiffs and burdensome to the Defendants and Courts system to have a proliferation of many lawsuits. The Class Action Procedure allows consolidation of many plaintiffs into one case. The problem with the case at hand is that there may not be enough members and the damages each suffered is not likely to be more than a couple of hundred dollars each. Honestly, I'm just not sure that enough damages have been sustained by the class to attract the typical class action contingency law firm.

Hey Advocate2,

Yes I am familiar with contract law and the wild and wonderful place it fills in the halls of jurisprudence. I confess it was my favorite subject, whereas criminal all just seemed grimy and repetitive. That said, I am NOT licensed to practice law in the US - my schooling was England & Wales, with no exposure to class action law, for obvious reasons.

I will defend the fella that misspoke of "tort reform" only because, while not precisely correct in this instance, it is sometimes used by the layperson to describe reforming not only tort, but also the rush to and ease of overzealous civil litigation in general. But that just my opinion.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by advocate2

It is also, in the US, illegal to practice law without a license, which you appear to be doing.

Oh, for crying out loud. If that's the case, then half the Internet is guilty of "practicing law without a license."

Thank you for illustrating your *cough* depth of understanding of the law.

Congrats, you're now on my Ignore list.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I'm happy to say that I am not.

Were you referring to people suing people with no real reason other than blaming someone else for their misfortunes?

BOb